If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Thus far, I don't believe that the warmists' theories are showing a better predicability for the short term than Dan's article's theory.

The real bottom line of this is that if we think that we need renewable fuels to take over the job of concentrated fossil fuels, how much can we afford to pay for doing so over what period of time.

Just found this notation:

“As an illustration, Germans will be paying more for electricity than any other major participant in the EU, according to the Household Energy Price Index for Europe. In September, Germans paid 40 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity,” the letter reads. “Even the ratepayers in Connecticut, who suffer the highest electricity rates in the U.S. (17 cents per kWh), pay less than half that.”

As an example, I am paying 10 cents/kwh for electricity. To that one has to add the flat "customer fee" of $18. Let's set aside that flat fee for the moment. Even with my most modest usage during non-AC months, my usage will run about 600-700 kwh. That's $60-$70. Using Germany's cost that would mean $240/mo for electricity! It's like talking about a 400% inflation rate for turning on your lights.

That would mean that every business would also be paying much more as well; every factory, every office, every hospital, every farm, and every govt office! The cost of all our goods and services will increase accordingly.

Who will this hurt the most? The poorest people will hurt the most. Obama won't hurt. Al Gore won't. How many more jobs will go somewhere else where production costs are much less? That is Germany's problem right now, causing them to step back from "renewables" and move more toward NG.

And we would be doing this in the face of the POTUS' own admission that it will have no impact on global warming because India and China will continue to increase their CO2 production as those countries struggle to feed their ever-growing populations. Likely there will be some other Third World countries that will do the same to raise their countries out of desperate poverty.

Rather than debate whether we're warming, whether man is the primary reason for that warming, maybe we should be building the innovation to cope with the effects of climate changes. While bulk of the common people of India and China are still fighting to get somewhere near the standard of living of our poor, only the developed countries have the ability to develop such innovations. We are only in a position to do that with a strong economy. Such an economy is fueled by affordable energy.

It seems that Obama thought NG was a great fuel, lower CO2 pollution, etc. until he found out that we had tons of the stuff. Then it was not "clean" enough. Maybe we need to find a way to recycle our nuclear energy waste products and make nuclear safer? No CO2 from nuclear.

Meanwhile, if we really want to contain human-caused CO2, it might be a lot more cost effective to give free birth control to the countries whose population growth far exceeds their ability to feed and care for their increasing populations.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

WASHINGTON — Climate change is already hurting American farmers and rural residents, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday, warning that the U.S. would regret any failure to adapt and prepare for shifting weather realities.

Unveiling a new effort to coordinate the government’s response, Vilsack said extreme weather events have already taken the U.S. by surprise, putting ranchers and others out of business. He pointed to the intensity and frequency of recent storms, long droughts, snowstorms and subzero weather as evidence that climate change is no longer hypothetical or in the future.

“The combination of all those factors convinces me that the climate is changing, and it’s going to have its impact, and will have its impact, and is having its impact on agriculture and forestry,” Vilsack said.

Pine bark beetle that in years past were killed off during harsh winters have now infected about 45 million trees in Western states, leading to more severe forest fires, posing flood risks and threatening the timber industry, Vilsack said. In the absence of adequate forecasting and disaster assistance, he said, an October snowstorm wiped out entire cattle operations in the Dakotas.

“When that snowstorm hit, it didn’t wipe out just a few animals. It wiped out the entire operation,” Vilsack said. “ Nobody anticipated and expected that severe a storm, that early.”

To that end, the Obama administration said seven new “climate hubs” will open in regions across the U.S., acting as clearinghouses for data and research about effects of climate change. Based out of existing Agriculture Department facilities, the hubs will assess local climate risks, such as drought and wildfire, then develop plans for dealing with them, such as improved irrigation techniques.

The goal is to synchronize the federal government’s preparation and resources with what other entities, such as universities, tribal communities and state governments, are doing to prepare for shifting temperatures.

“ It’s taking existing avenues, research service or forest service, and charging them with a new responsibility to basically take a look at precisely what risks are currently being recognized and what’s the vulnerability to agriculture and to forestry in each region of the country,” Vilsack said.

Vilsack disclosed the locations for the new hubs, which were included in Obama’s broader climate change plan. The seven regional hubs will be housed in forest service stations or government research labs in Ames, Iowa; Durham, N.H.; Raleigh, N.C.; Fort Collins, Colo.; El Reno, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.; and Las Cruces, N.M. Three smaller “sub-hubs” will be in Houghton, Mich.; Davis, Calif.; and Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

The goal of the new hubs is to synchronize the federal government’s preparation and resources with what other entities, such as universities, tribal communities and state governments, are doing to prepare for shifting temperatures.

Duh? How long has The Farmers' Almanac been around? Farmers have known a long while ago that ways to predict weather patterns can help them plan their crops. I see nothing wrong with the govt assisting in that.

Preparing for emergencies is a good thing. Whether the shifting temperatures are permanent or temporary is another question.

OTOH, whether the govt can change those weather patterns is another question entirely. If the govt puts unreasonable restriction on fossil fuels so that farmers have to pay a bunch more to run their tractors, that could be just as devastating to the farmers and our food supply as unfavorable weather. While a bad crop year can often be offset by future good years, govt regulations are forever (or so it would seem).

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

.................................................. .......................................
.................................................. While a bad crop year can often be offset by future good years, govt regulations are forever (or so it would seem).

Bingo ! Glad other people see this as maybe not so good.

charly

"Well, you know even though I'm old my body should not be worn out.............I'm a lazy person so I never used it enough to wear it out"

Duh? How long has The Farmers' Almanac been around? Farmers have known a long while ago that ways to predict weather patterns can help them plan their crops. I see nothing wrong with the govt assisting in that.

Preparing for emergencies is a good thing. Whether the shifting temperatures are permanent or temporary is another question.

OTOH, whether the govt can change those weather patterns is another question entirely. If the govt puts unreasonable restriction on fossil fuels so that farmers have to pay a bunch more to run their tractors, that could be just as devastating to the farmers and our food supply as unfavorable weather. While a bad crop year can often be offset by future good years, govt regulations are forever (or so it would seem).

Born and raised in a farm community, at least around these parts, no farmers take the Almanac any more serious than the magic 8 ball.

WASHINGTON — Climate change is already hurting American farmers and rural residents, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday, warning that the U.S. would regret any failure to adapt and prepare for shifting weather realities.

Unveiling a new effort to coordinate the government’s response, Vilsack said extreme weather events have already taken the U.S. by surprise, putting ranchers and others out of business. He pointed to the intensity and frequency of recent storms, long droughts, snowstorms and subzero weather as evidence that climate change is no longer hypothetical or in the future.

“The combination of all those factors convinces me that the climate is changing, and it’s going to have its impact, and will have its impact, and is having its impact on agriculture and forestry,” Vilsack said.

Pine bark beetle that in years past were killed off during harsh winters have now infected about 45 million trees in Western states, leading to more severe forest fires, posing flood risks and threatening the timber industry, Vilsack said. In the absence of adequate forecasting and disaster assistance, he said, an October snowstorm wiped out entire cattle operations in the Dakotas.

“When that snowstorm hit, it didn’t wipe out just a few animals. It wiped out the entire operation,” Vilsack said. “ Nobody anticipated and expected that severe a storm, that early.”

To that end, the Obama administration said seven new “climate hubs” will open in regions across the U.S., acting as clearinghouses for data and research about effects of climate change. Based out of existing Agriculture Department facilities, the hubs will assess local climate risks, such as drought and wildfire, then develop plans for dealing with them, such as improved irrigation techniques.

The goal is to synchronize the federal government’s preparation and resources with what other entities, such as puniversities, tribal communities and state governments, are doing to prepare for shifting temperatures.

“ It’s taking existing avenues, research service or forest service, and charging them with a new responsibility to basically take a look at precisely what risks are currently being recognized and what’s the vulnerability to agriculture and to forestry in each region of the country,” Vilsack said.

Vilsack disclosed the locations for the new hubs, which were included in Obama’s broader climate change plan. The seven regional hubs will be housed in forest service stations or government research labs in Ames, Iowa; Durham, N.H.; Raleigh, N.C.; Fort Collins, Colo.; El Reno, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.; and Las Cruces, N.M. Three smaller “sub-hubs” will be in Houghton, Mich.; Davis, Calif.; and Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

The goal of the new hubs is to synchronize the federal government’s preparation and resources with what other entities, such as universities, tribal communities and state governments, are doing to prepare for shifting temperatures.

Putting the ranchers out of business give me a break. The government would rather put them out of business threw estate taxes and then sell the ranches to their corporate donors like Warren Buffet.

I am not taking either side but most liberals believe in evolution. Thus, wouldn't the pine beetle eventually evolved to a point to survive the cold winter in a matter of time?

Why would they take such measures to save to population because we are the ones supposedly causing global warming? If they would do nothing then there would be less people. This is basically counter intuitive to their theory.

WASHINGTON — Climate change is already hurting American farmers and rural residents, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday, warning that the U.S. would regret any failure to adapt and prepare for shifting weather realities.

The goal is to synchronize the federal government’s preparation and resources with what other entities, such as universities, tribal communities and state governments, are doing to prepare for shifting temperatures.

“ It’s taking existing avenues, research service or forest service, and charging them with a new responsibility to basically take a look at precisely what risks are currently being recognized and what’s the vulnerability to agriculture and to forestry in each region of the country,” Vilsack said.

Vilsack disclosed the locations for the new hubs, which were included in Obama’s broader climate change plan. The seven regional hubs will be housed in forest service stations or government research labs in Ames, Iowa; Durham, N.H.; Raleigh, N.C.; Fort Collins, Colo.; El Reno, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.; and Las Cruces, N.M. Three smaller “sub-hubs” will be in Houghton, Mich.; Davis, Calif.; and Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

The goal of the new hubs is to synchronize the federal government’s preparation and resources with what other entities, such as universities, tribal communities and state governments, are doing to prepare for shifting temperatures.

The goal is to create more unnecessary government jobs -

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

I see nothing wrong with the govt assisting in that.

Preparing for emergencies is a good thing. Whether the shifting temperatures are permanent or temporary is another question.

OTOH, whether the govt can change those weather patterns is another question entirely. If the govt puts unreasonable restriction on fossil fuels so that farmers have to pay a bunch more to run their tractors, that could be just as devastating to the farmers and our food supply as unfavorable weather. While a bad crop year can often be offset by future good years, govt regulations are forever (or so it would seem).

Down the road to higher budgets the nation heads as someone can't see anything wrong with the taxpayer paying for a service the business owner should pay for . Farms are big business, some much bigger than others

I grew up on a dry land farm in SD, some years were good others not so. I've been through some very nasty weather & blizzards. We made do with what we had & did quite well . There was not a lot of government & my grandfather would not have taken it as he was not willing to let the government push him around.